Signing petitions harm animals

Please STOP signing petitions for animal causes. They hurt animals, they don't help!

"Some Thoughts on Why Vegans Criticise Vegans for Promoting Veganism":
http://veganismisnonviolence.com/2014/02/11/criticisingvegans

"Why Not Single Issue Campaigns And Petitions":
http://elated.co.za/why-not-single-issue-campaigns-and-petitions

"Popular Myths About Abolitionism Debunked":
http://theabolitionist.info/article/popular-myths-about-abolitionism-debunked

"Factionalism in the Nonhuman Animal Rights Movement":
http://academicabolitionistvegan.blogspot.com/2013/07/factionalism-in-nonhuman-animal-rights.html

"Reclaiming Abolitionism: It's Time For Us To Take A Stand For Animals":
http://vfaonline.org/index.php/alerts/general-alerts/41-alerts/alertsgeneral/185-reclaiming-abolitionism

"Picking the Low-Hanging Fruit: What Is Wrong with Single Issue Campaigns?":
http://uvearchives.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/picking-the-low-hanging-fruit-what-is-wrong-with-single-issue-campaigns

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-welfare-regulation-happy-exploitation-and-speciesism
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-four-problems-of-animal-welfare-in-a-nutshell
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-welfare-militant-direct-action-mantras-and-faith
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/veganism-just-another-way-of-reducing-suffering-or-a-fundamental-principle-of-justice-nonviolence

UnlikeQuote from Colin Wright

Why I don't sign petitions against dog meat in China

By Jonathan Hughes:Urgh. Woke up to find an invite to sign a petition asking the Chinese Government (via Barack Obama and José Barroso) to stop the slaughter of dogs in China for meat. Suffice to say, it's not a petition I will be signing, nor endorsing. A personal point of note since I live with two cats and love them dearly… if this was about cats, I still wouldn't sign. Here's why:

1) It's speciesist. Clearly. If this needs spelling out - it's just about dogs. No mention of the way any other animals are killed (for food or any other use) – they *may* also be skinned alive and treated terribly. But this petition *only* cares about the dogs. Speciesism is everywhere and is pervasive – setting up one animal to be more worthy of saving than others deflects attention away from the countless billions of 'less worthy' species. The actual text of this petition includes the following: 'The DOG is always considered, by all civilizations, man's best friend and it never hesitated to sacrifice its life for men.'
Speciesism in a sentence, right there (and and an unhealthy dose of misogyny/sexism and turning dogs into an object/non-person with 'it'). The creation of petitions like this just furthers the idea that 'some lives matter more than others'. I do not subscribe to the view that *any* awareness of animal suffering is a good thing. Quite the contrary – this just says that dogs suffer and will do nothing for a reduction in non-human suffering…. see point 2.

2) Let's say it works – let's just pretend for one moment that this will actually work – what then? Will the Chinese dog-eaters switch to Tofu instead? Or, is it more likely that they will eat pigs, chickens, cats, sheep etc instead? How is that a win? Great for the dogs but no good for any other non-human. Net suffering remains the same – the slaughter is just moved to another species and if we see ALL sentient beings as equally morally important, how can this ever be considered a win? It simply can't. Pushing slaughter from one species to another isn't a win. It's a step nowhere.

3) It's xenophobic. Clearly. Why ask 'Race X' to stop eating 'Species Y'? How is 'Race X' any different to every other race in the world? Over a trillion animals are slaughtered every year – EVERY race is involved in this. Why single out one? Because they are 'worse'? Tell that to every fish that dies gasping for breath on board a boat deck.

4) There is no mention of veganism - no mention at all. There's no mention of reduced consumption of animal products at all - just an urge to not use dogs. Non-human suffering will not (effectively) end without veganism. More vegans = less animal suffering. How about we try and create vegans instead?

PLEASE just take a step back and *think* about what you sign.

There are numerous other reasons why I won't sign a petition like this...
Find out more here:
http://uvearchives.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/picking-the-low-hanging-fruit-what-is-wrong-with-single-issue-campaigns/

Comments regarding a petition that calls the government of USA to stop the gassing of dogs and cats on animal shelters

My comments about a petition that calls the government of USA to stop the gassing of dogs and cats on animal shelters:

Most of the people signing this petition are sadly nonvegans, and all these petitions make them feel like heroes and animal lovers who are helping the animals from the institutionalized animal exploiters. They feel like heroes that are fighting all day long signing petitions. This is far from the truth. They should instead be confronted with their behavior of the animal exploitation that they participate in and pay for every day, and the fact that nothing will changes for the animals as long as they have animal foods on their plates and pay someone for killing animals for their clothes, etc.

Furthermore, the petition in itself is actually sending the implicit message that it is morally acceptable to kill animals in animal shelters, but that it should be done in a more "humane way". This is the problem with almost any petition. It almost always sends an underlying implicit speciesist and/or racist and/or sexist message.

The animal foods on their plates (meat, fish, milk and eggs) or clothes (leather, down, fur, etc.) come from individuals that had an equally horrible death.

A good petition would have been: Stop killing animals on animal shelters. You can help animals by rescuing them and adopting them from shelters. Stop breeding animals. Stop perpetuating this system where animals are property and can be killed by her owner for any reason (Watch this video: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/slides/theory2.html about this). Stop participating in animal exploitation for food, clothes, entertainment, breeding of pets and any other reason. If you breed or use animals in any other way you are an integral part of this problem. Go vegan!

I challenge every vegan to stop perpetuating speciesism, which is done e.g. by sharing speciesist petitions; and every nonvegan to stop the hypocrisy and animal exploitation of consuming and using animals and go vegan.

And while we are on the issue of gassing animals. PETA are advocating that chickens should be slaughtered by being gassed to death. Where are all petitions complaining that supposedly “animal rights”-organizations go hand in hand with animal exploiters?: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/peta-and-kfc-no-differences-of-opinion-about-how-animals-should-be-treated/

More to learn about single issue campaigns in this excellent podcast (please listen): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__oszGN5PjM

Djurkampanjer, rasism och underskriftslistor för att få ett slut på t.ex. hundslakt och kattslakt i Sydkorea eller Kina

Ja,visst är det helt sjukt att utsätta djur för lidande. Problemet med underskriftslistor som bara fokuserar på ett land/folkgrupp och deras djurplågeri är att de antingen är rasistiska/uppmuntrar till rasism. Det är bara se alla kommentar på vilken underskriftslista som helst, där man framställer ett land/folkslag som värre än ett annat folkslag, trots att 99% av befolkningen betalar för och deltar i exakt samma utnyttjande genom alla ickeveganska val som de gör.

Mer att läsa här: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/problems-with-petitions-against-eg-live.html

Dog meat festival in China or grill fest of cows in USA -- same moral atrocity of killing animals

Why would a Chinese mayor listen to a campaign which is signed by many non-vegans who don't consume dogs, but consume other animals that matters as much morally? I think it would be much more effective to show him why the usage and consumption of any animal products is morally wrong. And the mayor is as responsible as the rest of every and any non-vegan for this festival taking place. Everyone eating and using animals and their products is directly paying for the animal exploitation and that all animals of this world should be regarded as property, a status which never will protect them from animal abuse and murder.

I think such petitions are problematic, since they send are either sending the implicit message/often interpreted to mean by the readers that there is a difference between animal cruelty of different countries, and difference between animal cruelty of different species, and also only condemning one sort of animal cruelty against this species. I think those petitions confuse many non-vegans, making them think they are helping animals without challenging their speciecism and their non-vegan habits of animal cruelty against other species for food. Here are some more problems:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/single-issue-campaigns-such-as-anti-fur.html
I think we should focus our time on this kind of education: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/varfor-fordomer-vi-djurplageri-men.html [in English, see instead: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights ] - i.e. showing non-vegans that all animal exploitation is inherently wrong and showing that they already agree with the basic premise, which will they cause them to go vegan if they just follow what they believe.
What do you think?

----------
Another Version:
Why would a Chinese mayor listen to a campaign which is signed by many non-vegans who don't consume dogs, but consume other animals that matters as much morally?
This article http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights ]  shows people consuming animal products that all animal exploitation is inherently wrong. It is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death upon animals, and this is done for each bite of an animal products. Each bite is paying for industralized animal abuse.
I think it would be much more effective to show him why the usage and consumption of any animal products is morally wrong. And the mayor is as responsible as the rest of every and any non-vegan for this festival taking place. Everyone eating and using animals and their products is directly paying for the animal exploitation and that all animals of this world should be regarded as property, a status which never will protect them from animal abuse and murder.

I think such petitions are problematic, since they send are either sending the implicit message/often interpreted to mean by the readers that there is a difference between animal cruelty of different countries, and difference between animal cruelty of different species, and also only condemning one sort of animal cruelty against this species. I think those petitions confuse many non-vegans, making them think they are helping animals without challenging their speciecism and their non-vegan habits of animal cruelty against other species for food. Here are some more problems:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/single-issue-campaigns-such-as-anti-fur.html

Problems with petitions against e.g. live cooking of lobster

 I think such petitions are problematic, since they send are either sending the implicit message/often interpreted to mean by the readers that there is a difference between animal cruelty of different countries, and difference between animal cruelty of different species, and also only condemning one sort of animal cruelty against this species (the campaigns sends the implict message that the problem is the "live cooking", the problem is not ALL killing). I think those petitions confuse many non-vegans, making them think they are helping animals without challenging their speciecism and their non-vegan habits of animal cruelty against other species for food. Here are some more problems:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/single-issue-campaigns-such-as-anti-fur.html
I think we should focus our time on this kind of education: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/06/varfor-fordomer-vi-djurplageri-men.html [in English, see instead: http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights ] - i.e. showing non-vegans that all animal exploitation is inherently wrong and showing that they already agree with the basic premise, which will they cause them to go vegan if they just follow what they believe.

What do you think?

------------------

Quote by Gary Francione (Author of http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ ):
"You claim that those who are critical of Asian practices, such as eating dogs, are racists. Does that mean that you are a cultural relativist? Do you think it's okay that Asians do that?"

My reply:

First of all, I do *not* say that anyone who criticizes such practices is a racist. I say that such campaigns tend to encourage racism and xenophobia because they characterize what others do as morally worse or as more "barbaric" than what is done by those in the culture or society of the person making the criticism. That is, such campaigns almost always result in people who eat cows and chickens and other animals characterizing Asians as "bad" people. I have a problem with that. Don't you?

Not everyone who makes a negative comment about eating dogs is a racist but some certainly are. Look at the comments that are made whenever anyone posts a story about dog eating. Many comments *are* just downright racist. But I am not interested in judging individuals on matters of intention. I am, however, interested in discouraging campaigns that inherently lend themselves to expressions of racism and xenophobia.

Second, if there is anything I am not, it is a moral relativist of *any* sort. I am a moral realist. I reject relativism of any type, including cultural relativism. I think it is terrible that anyone eats dogs. But I also think it's terrible that anyone eats cows or chicken or aquatic animals, or drinks milk, or eats eggs or cheese, etc. I don't see eating dogs as morally distinguishable from eating cows, chicken or any other animal products. Period.

 

--

 Seagull LivingStone: <The cruelty of Asian cultures towards animals is infamous> I would suggest that Asian culture has no monopoly here. Several minutes ago, I received an email saying that "We don't skin animals alive the way Orientals do." Putting aside that rugs may be "Oriental" but people are Asian, anyone who would say such an ignorant thing has never been in a US slaughterhouse, where animals are often alive when being cut and skinned. Indeed, the Washington Post did an article on this several years back. Have you ever seen the way animals are slaughtered here in the "humane" US? In any event, to say that Asians deserve special mention here is, indeed, both racist and xenophobic and I would ask that you not make those comments here. Thank you for your cooperation.

---Vincent Guihan I think it's vitally important for animal advocates to unpack the inherent racism (sexism, classism, ableism, etc.) in many welfare-oriented, single-issue oriented campaigns. Not only is this a moral duty, in practical terms, it marginalizes animal advocacy as a 'whites only, middle class only, patriarchs only' venture.

It doesn't help that leading proponents of engaging 'other communities' in the welfare/SIC/MDA community engage in a practice that shows a serious disconnect between their nominal view that people of colour, the poor, women, etc., should feel welcome in animal advocacy, unless they're Asians, Latinos, slaughterhouse workers, scientists or waiters, women, etc., since animal advocacy groups tend to vilify these groups when there's a nickel on the table to do so.

(Although I think the notion of engaging 'other communities' often tends to be benevolently misguided when it amounts to a tacit assertion that people of colour, the poor, etc., are not already part of the advocacy community, which it often is. They are; my understanding is that they often just aren't explicitly interested in engaging with advocates who trade on racist, sexist, classist and ableist ideologies in order to promote an advocacy that could not reasonably achieve positive impact or outcomes for animals -- that is, they have the same critique of mainstream animal advocacy that anyone who is not drowning in welfare ideologies has).

-----
 Which is to say, it's not that veganism is 'too white', 'too male', 'too middle class' for segments of society that are not white, middle class and male -- as some suggest; it's that the proponents of welfare and SICs -- at almost every turn -- alienate these groups but also show that they operate under magical thinking about the relationship between work done and results achieved.

If there's anything that someone who is not white, not male or not middle class (not overtly privileged) in North America understands, it's that you can't waste time, effort and resources on things that won't achieve the results you hope they might.

When advocacy groups don't align these things, they signal their privilege (off the backs of nonhuman animals and marginalized groups) -- that they have all the resources in the world to engage in ridiculous frivolities. No one who's endured anything remotely like a serious social challenge can look easily at a group like that and say "awesome, where do I sign-up?? I see myself here."

---
 Which is to say, it's not that veganism is 'too white', 'too male', 'too middle class' for segments of society that are not white, middle class and male -- as some suggest; it's that the proponents of welfare and SICs -- at almost every turn -- alienate these groups but also show that they operate under magical thinking about the relationship between work done and results achieved.

If there's anything that someone who is not white, not male or not middle class (not overtly privileged) in North America understands, it's that you can't waste time, effort and resources on things that won't achieve the results you hope they might.

When advocacy groups don't align these things, they signal their privilege (off the backs of nonhuman animals and marginalized groups) -- that they have all the resources in the world to engage in ridiculous frivolities. No one who's endured anything remotely like a serious social challenge can look easily at a group like that and say "awesome, where do I sign-up?? I see myself here."

------

In order to believe that petitions and other single issue campaigns will be effective as a method of animal rights activism you also have to believe that not only will they change what they intend to change but that they will also influence people's attitude so that they will not simply shift their exploitation somewhere else. Foe exaple, will those who suddenly find dog meat unavailable start eating tofu instead of another type of meat? Will those disappointed at the loss of the 'bull run' suddenly stop visiting other events where animals are exploited for entertainment? I'm afraid there is absolutely no substantive evidence to suggest this is the case, therfore no reduction in the overall burden of animal exploitation results from these campaigns.

Alan O Reily

No moral difference between eatings dogs, wearing fur and using and consuming other animal products

Please consider this quote :

"I get a lot of requests to sign petitions to end dog and cat meat trades in other countries. The latest one I got was a pledge to "exclude Switzerland as a holiday destination until eating cats and dogs is outlawed by the Swiss government."

 

The reason I won't sign petitions like this is because they are speciesist. There is no moral difference between dogs, pigs, cows, cats, sheep, fish - but campaigns like these make it seem like dogs and cats matter more, that it's not okay to eat them but perfectly okay to eat other animals and products that come from them.

 

If we were to refuse going to Switzerland because they eat dogs and cats, in order to be morally consistent, we'd have to refuse going to any country that exploits animals - which isn't possible because sadly animal exploitation is everywhere!

 

Watch my video about the problems with single issue campaigns here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpp7Zhijm8o

 

Let's be a strong, consistent voice for ALL animals and promote veganism - unequivocally - wherever we can. Let's work to end ALL animal use in ALL countries, because no matter what species, they are all sentient individuals who deserve the basic right to not be treated as the property of others. "

 

The above campaign sends the message to non-vegans that there is a moral difference between killing dogs, and between killing other animals. We should instead spread vegans campaigns against all animal use. More thoughts: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/single-issue-campaigns-such-as-anti-fur.html